Promo company Da Block 365 accused of using social media accounts of DMX, Game, Fat Joe & more to mislead customers.
Author’s note: This story is an update to a piece published on October 1, 2020 titled “Hundreds of independent hip-hop artists are accusing a promo company of fraud.” It’s STRONGLY recommended that anybody reading the piece below go back and read the first piece before moving on.
Before we get into the details, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I am not a legal expert. Any facts/screenshots/conclusions located herein come from the experiences people have had working with the company and not my own experiences. My opinions are my opinions and I encourage readers to do their own research. I am by no means the first person to look into this. Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube are home to plenty of “investigations” conducted by those with first-person experience. Again, please read the October 1 story linked above for more on that.
Furthermore, the company in question has not been charged with anything. The artists mentioned in this story as having worked or working with the company are not being accused of fraud.
As previously reported, hundreds of independent music artists are making accusations of misleading or fraudulent business practices against a music promotion/marketing company going by Da Block 365. For anyone paying attention, the frequency and consistency of these accusations is alarming.
To understand the accusations, one must first have a grasp of how this company seems to be operating. All screenshots below provided by instagram.com/rap.ponzischeme unless otherwise stated.
- Da Block 365 seemingly partners with verified social media account holders, primarily famous artists in hip-hop.
- The company seemingly gains access to the social media accounts of those artists, using it to communicate directly with customers.
- A post appears on the social media pages of these verified artists, generally a photo with a call to action like “tag a dope artist.”
4. Thousands of followers tag their friends in the comments.
5. Many of those tagged people then receive a DM from the verified account of the musician in question. The DM pays them a compliment (obviously copied and pasted, as many folks receive identical messages), and eventually promises placement on various platforms in exchange for money. In the examples below from DMX and Papoose, they seem to suggest the recipient is really talking to them. It’s also clear they are not actually listening to the recipients’ music and are focused only on getting to the money. Note that Papoose says “my tape,” insinuating it’s a mixtape he’s publishing and appearing on.
6. The promises range. Sometimes it’s a slot on a “Spotify Premium playlist” (more on that later). Sometimes it’s a slot on a “mixed tape.” Sometimes these verified accounts offer to “host” a song. Vague promises that the project will be “pushed hard” are made.
7. Payments — usually to two separate CashApp accounts — of anywhere from $100 to thousands of dollars are requested. Often, the person on the receiving end of the DMs explains they don’t have the amount of money being requested. Almost always, the sender of the DMs is willing to take whatever they can get. Similarly, if the recipient doesn’t have CashApp, the sender abandons it and asks for money to be sent elsewhere. In the Jadakiss example below, it’s notable that the sender of the messages from his account is adamant the memo does not list the payment as being for goods and services…
8. Alleged victims are asked to submit a form, including the song of theirs which they want included on the promised project, as well as their full names and phone numbers. There are no contracts. (This “company” is so unprofessional, that forms sent from the Redman account spell his name as “Red Man.” You can see that in the previous report linked above.)
9. Some alleged victims are indeed placed on playlists or “mixed tapes”/mixtapes, but more often than not the playlists/mixtapes do not appear on official/verified accounts as promised but instead on dead playlists with hardly any followers, likes or plays.
The company is being accused of misleading victims into believing they are communicating directly with well-known, superstar rappers like Redman, The Game, Fat Joe, DMX as well as R&B singers like Tank. It’s clear many of the messages being sent to alleged victims are copied and pasted, so a DM one person gets from the Fat Joe account might exactly match a DM someone else got from the Dave East account, and so on. One can safely assume Da Block 365 is either providing these famous artists with the copy to send to prospective customers or, perhaps more likely, the company is the one doing all of the communicating. But they’re doing it in such a way as to appear as if it’s Fat Joe (or The Game, or Jadakiss, or Tank, etc.) sending the message and not a representative of him.
There are examples of recipients of these DMs asking the famous rapper to hop on Facetime or video chat to confirm their identity. Guess what? They don’t get a video chat. Instead, the verified account holders send messages like “I ain’t got time for all that.” It’s not unreasonable to think that these famous artists don’t have the time to communicate with thousands of accounts over DM. It is reasonable to think that allowing someone to impersonate you to convince folks to send you money is fraudulent.
Accusations against Da Block 365 also include deceptive marketing, inflated streaming numbers through the use of black-hat tools, doxxing, harassment and threats. In some cases, alleged victims who’ve gone public with accusations have had their money returned, presumably to buy their silence. In the Spotify section below, you can see one such example.
In my previous report — which you can read here, and which provides some essential backstory about how and when these accusations began garnering lots of steam — I attempted to provide a general overview of Da Block 365 and the alleged scam it’s operating.
I think it’s worth taking a closer look and what Da Block 365 is and does. A cursory look at its website makes it clear the company partners with established acts — primarily rappers — to present mixtapes which are in reality playlists on platforms like DatPiff and Soundcloud. Rappers who appear on their website under the “Artists” tab as “Artist [SIC] we are currently working with” include:
Benny the Butcher
Bow Wow
Busta Rhymes
Da Brat
Dave East
Fat Joe
Fetty Wap
The Game
Jadakiss
Juelz Santana
OT Genasis
Papoose
The “services” the company offers? Here’s what the webpage says: “If you are interested in one of these artists to host your next single or your next project or simply want your current material you have out shouted out on their social media platforms use the contact form or hit us up on Instagram @dablock365.”
Playlists “hosted” by these artists do appear on the company’s website, so it’s clear there is a product of some kind delivered. There’s a HUGE problem with that, though. These playlists live on Da Block 365’s Soundcloud. The company recently deleted its Soundcloud account, which means anyone who paid money to appear on its playlists now has nothing to show for it. That goes for folks who appeared on Soundcloud playlists already published (which have now completely vanished) and, in the case of the exchange below with the DMX account, playlists which haven’t even gone live yet. For the record, the person communicating with the DMX account below never got a response about the deleted Soundcloud.
On Da Block 365’s Spotify account, there are a few playlists. It’s worth mentioning the account has only 205 followers. Its playlist “hosted” by Jadakiss has only 70 likes. The “Benny the Butcher Playlist for Unsigned Artists” playlist has nine likes. The “Fat Joe Playlist for Unsigned Artists” has 11 likes. As reported in my previous piece, many of the unsigned artists who paid to be on these playlists were led to believe they were paying to appear on playlists hosted on the verified Spotify accounts of Fat Joe, Redman and others. More on Spotify later.
Elsewhere on the company’s website, there’s a tab that says “Register Your Music.” That page is absolutely empty. For a company touting what appears to be close relationships with megawatt talent, the manner in which it presents itself through its website is abysmal. But that’s a matter of personal taste and has no bearing whatsoever on whether the company is operating lawfully.
There have been times in which the accounts of these verified artists send rude, unprofessional and pushy DMs to prospective customers. Take a look at the example below from Shad Moss (fka Bow Wow and Lil Bow Wow).
For this chapter of my ongoing report, I will take a closer look at consumer laws and Spotify’s rules in an effort to provide some preliminary exploration of whether anything Da Block 365 is doing is illegal.
A reminder. I am not a lawyer, nor a legal expert of any kind. I did, however, speak with two prominent attorneys on background, both of whom provided me with guidance and direction. I also spoke directly with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and will begin with an examination of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which exists to “prevent unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce”; “seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers”; “prescribe rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices”; “gather and compile information and conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce”; and “make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress and the public.”
I spoke with Juliana Gruenwald of the FTC, who told me the primary function of the FTC Act is that it “prohibits companies from engaging in unfair and deceptive practices.” She pointed me to this link and, more specifically, the “Enforcement Authority” section. There, under “Consumer Protection,” it states:
Section 5(a) of the FTC Act provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce . . . are . . . declared unlawful.”
Let’s define “deceptive.” According to the FTC:
“Deceptive” practices are defined in the Commission’s Policy Statement on Deception as involving a material representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.
Below is an example of someone paying for a slot on a Soundcloud playlist and not being put on it at all.
Here’s an example of it being suggested that the customer will make money from Spotify streams if he buys a slot on a Juelz Santana “tape” on Spotify. You guessed it. There is no mixtape from 2020 on Juelz Santana’s Spotify. Now that Da Block 365 has deleted all of its Spotify playlists, well…
Section 52(a) states,
It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement — By any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase in or having an effect upon commerce, of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.
Section 54 states,
“Any person, partnership, or corporation who violates any provision of section 52(a) of this title shall, if the use of the commodity advertised may be injurious to health because of results from such use under the conditions prescribed in the advertisement thereof, or under such conditions as are customary or usual, or if such violation is with intent to defraud or mislead, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months…”
The FTC Act defines “false advertisement” as:
…an advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether any advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.
Whether there exists already a legal precedent regarding the use of verified accounts to sell a product, I don’t know. I am also unaware of whether this can be considered impersonation in any legal sense. I also don’t know if misleading communications and services promised in a private, DM conversation are legally considered false advertisement. It’s certainly deceptive. It’s evident there are some pressure tactics at play, too, wherein customers are led to believe they’ll miss the opportunity to have a slot on the playlists/mixtapes unless they send the money immediately.
The full Federal Trade Commission Act is available here. By the way, there may also be state laws at play here. For example, California has its own Unfair Competition Law.
Since the customers in this business model are asked to send their songs in MP3 format, it’s worth asking what exactly this company is doing with that music. In theory, they have thousands of MP3s in their possession and could feasibly use them for any purpose.
I spoke with Mu Mazi, a New York-based rap artist who’s become an outspoken critic of Da Block 365. She feels she was defrauded by the company and The Game (or by whomever was using his Instagram account). She says she was promised a slot on a Spotify playlist, something she was definitely interested in because of the potential revenue share she could collect.
In the first screenshot below (all of which were provided by Mu Mazi), Game says he’s working on a “premium spotify project.” Hard stop. There’s no such thing. The content available on Spotify Premium is the same content available on the platform’s free version, just without ads. Secondly, he specifically says the project will be on his Spotify page. In his defense, the playlist in question isn’t supposed to go live until December. Nevertheless, it is completely against Spotify rules to charge anyone for a slot on its playlisting services. For a verified, blue-checked Spotify user to sell a slot on his Spotify page is a punishable offense.
In the second screenshot, Game seems to assure Mu Mazi that “No one managing” his page but himself. Let’s continue.
As in other instances, Game asks for payments to be made to two separate Cash App accounts. That’s when the Game account explains the “mixtape” drops December 3. At this point, Mu Mazi tells me, she’s confused. “I specifically paid Game $300 to be on a Spotify playlist, not no mixtape.” She brings up her concern and Game, perhaps justifiably, responds with the fact the “tape” hasn’t even dropped yet. But remember, she thought she was paying for a Spotify playlist. Perhaps this company should stop using these terms interchangably.
The two exchange some more back and forth. Eventually, Mu Mazi is reimbursed $150, half of what she paid.
It seems the $150 she was returned came from the CashApp account not belonging to Game but the “team” he referenced earlier. Mu Mazi then realized she was blocked by the Da Block 365 IG account. Whoever is messaging her from Game’s account then offers to post to his Story to make up for the other $150. It would make sense that, if this company is splitting profits from this business model with the artists involved, they would want to keep the business relationship in good standing. Asking Game to refund his half of the transaction wouldn’t be good, so offering to post to Game’s Story seems to be the only thing the company can do. Let’s be clear. This is just MY OPINION.
Anyway, let’s continue.
The conversation ends after Game asks her to “delete that stupid shit on ya page and imma try to still put u on da tape.” He’s referring to a post from Mu Mazi in which she makes accusations of fraud and misleading business. It seems she’s being bribed a spot on the tape (a spot she relinquished in lieu of a refund) if she takes it down.
Instead of splitting hairs about whether Game’s account misled Mu Mazi, let’s focus on selling a spot on Spotify. A call to Spotify’s press inquiry line led me to an article the platform published called “Behind the Playlists: Your Questions Answered by Our Playlist Editors.” In it, it states,
First things first, you cannot pay to get on an official Spotify playlist. If someone or a third party company is offering placement on a playlist in exchange for money, this is a streaming manipulation service that goes against Spotify’s guidelines for music promotion. The following is not permitted for any reason whatsoever: Selling a user account or playlist, or otherwise accepting or offering to accept any compensation, financial or otherwise, to influence the name of an account or playlist or the content included on an account or playlist. Additionally we routinely remove user-generated playlists that claim to offer this, so it won’t benefit you in the long run. Our editors and algorithms are there to get your music in front of the most receptive audiences — those other playlists aren’t!
Elsewhere, the Spotify Terms and Conditions have explicit user guidelines. They include:
The following is not permitted for any reason whatsoever:
selling, renting, sublicensing or leasing of any part of the Spotify Service or the Content;
artificially increasing play counts, follow counts or otherwise manipulating the Service by (i) using any bot, script or other automated process, (ii) providing or accepting any form of compensation (financial or otherwise), or (iii) any other means;
I hope to further investigate this story in a future update. If any legal experts are interested in speaking on the record, please contact me at this link.
